Scientist, engineer and all around smart guy uncovers Global Warming Hoax

[jakee 1,582]

Quote

Funny thing is tho, when Darwin came out with it, most of the Christian scientists saw it as how God works in the Universe. It was the atheists / agnostics that slammed Darwin time and again because it bucked the status quo.

And meanwhile, in the real world...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Marinus 0]

Quote

I would refer you to the original post.
If the science was robust and could withstand REAL scrutiny climate scientists would be tripping over themselves to release the raw data.
My hunch is that the observed rise in global temperatures at the end of the last century was an observation in search of a theory; thus begot the new theory of AGW. Hair was set alight and many scientists, policy makers and financiers, started to line up at the potential trough. However when reality no longer comported with theory, reality had to be adjusted, corrected and have "value added". Releasing the raw data would expose the game and the whole field of climate science as well as the political and financial windfalls of carbon trading would fall flat on their collective faces.

I'm sure you're an excellent creationist.....

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Yes I believe in evolution. But my question to you is, with your obvious "Climate Change" religious beliefs, why have you given up on evolution? Do you honestly believe live on this planet is about to end? Good grief ...

So you have a lot of trouble understanding what you read, it seems.

Quote

In fact I believe in evolution so much that I have a strong belief that life on this planet will continue to evolve for billions and billions more years up until the point when that great big ball in the sky 93 million miles from us burns up. Only when that great big ball in the sky begins it's path to it's end will life on this planet cease to exist.

Your trust in evolution is admirable, still the earth will probably be sterilized in the latter half of the next billion years. Long before the sun burns up btw. Your understanding of the relevant science is lacking and/or coming from ScyFy channel sitcoms

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Funny thing is tho, when Darwin came out with it, most of the Christian scientists saw it as how God works in the Universe. It was the atheists / agnostics that slammed Darwin time and again because it bucked the status quo.

Meanwhile in the real world, Christianity is to science, what cancer is to toddlers. Even if it doesn't snuff them out completely it's extremely bad for their development. That's why (for example) the most vocal opponents of evolution are Christians.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

I would refer you to the original post.
If the science was robust and could withstand REAL scrutiny climate scientists would be tripping over themselves to release the raw data.
My hunch is that the observed rise in global temperatures at the end of the last century was an observation in search of a theory; thus begot the new theory of AGW. Hair was set alight and many scientists, policy makers and financiers, started to line up at the potential trough. However when reality no longer comported with theory, reality had to be adjusted, corrected and have "value added". Releasing the raw data would expose the game and the whole field of climate science as well as the political and financial windfalls of carbon trading would fall flat on their collective faces.

I'm sure you're an excellent creationist.....

Clearly you are an excellent IDIOT. (Note to moderator, Moronis is using "creationist" as a pejorative, which is explicitly prohibited by the forums ROE.)

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Clearly you are an excellent IDIOT. (Note to moderator, Moronis is using "creationist" as a pejorative, which is explicitly prohibited by the forums ROE.)

So you're trying to prove the word "creationist" is an insult, by referring to me as an idiot and a moron?

[brenthutch 444]

Just playing around no need to get upset.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ882QYzr-M

[Marinus 0]

Personally I don't give a shit about personl attacks, but some people might, so most probably you're not playing around, but you're just trying to wiggle your way out of a ban.

Good luck with that.

[kallend 2,131]

Quote

Quote

It's funny how you use examples of scientists from times before the Theory of Evolution wasn't proven to be right beyond any reasonable doubt. I guess that's because contemporary scientists who deny evolution happened are much harder to find. But you've go a point there, not all creationists are idiots.

But modern creationists in the developed world are ignorant fools that are on par with flat earthers. Not because they don't think like me, but because they deny something, that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, happened.

Creationism is not a scientific alternative for evolution, it's religious bogus.

Funny thing is tho, when Darwin came out with it, most of the Christian scientists saw it as how God works in the Universe. It was the atheists / agnostics that slammed Darwin time and again because it bucked the status quo.

Totally at odds with real history.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Actually, if climate skeptics often turn out to be creationists like I expect them too be, it means that climate skeptics are generally people who aren't capable of understanding basic science.

Without a doubt humans do influence the planet's ecology, but I am a skeptic that humans are solely responsible for our ever changing climate and I thoroughly believe in evolution. In fact I believe in evolution so much that I have a strong belief that life on this planet will continue to evolve for billions and billions more years up until the point when that great big ball in the sky 93 million miles from us burns up. Only when that great big ball in the sky begins it's path to it's end will life on this planet cease to exist.

Yes I believe in evolution. But my question to you is, with your obvious "Climate Change" religious beliefs, why have you given up on evolution? Do you honestly believe live on this planet is about to end? Good grief ...

I believe you have the survival skills to survive a house fire. If not, your survivorss will at least be able to learn from your mistakes and be better for it. So why not burn your house down?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,094]

>Without a doubt humans do influence the planet's ecology

Agreed.

>but I am a skeptic that humans are solely responsible for our ever changing climate

Also agreed. We are merely the primary reason it's getting warmer; we are certainly not the only reason the climate changes.

>and I thoroughly believe in evolution.

Also agreed. Every climactic change has involved mass extinctions, which open up new ecological niches. This drives rapid evolutionary change as new species evolve to fit the new niches. At most any loss of diversity/total biome will be temporary.

Whether or not that's a good thing to cause, of course, is a different question.

[kallend 2,131]

Quote

>Without a doubt humans do influence the planet's ecology

Agreed.

>but I am a skeptic that humans are solely responsible for our ever changing climate

Also agreed. We are merely the primary reason it's getting warmer; we are certainly not the only reason the climate changes.

>and I thoroughly believe in evolution.

Also agreed. Every climactic change has involved mass extinctions, which open up new ecological niches. This drives rapid evolutionary change as new species evolve to fit the new niches. At most any loss of diversity/total biome will be temporary.

Whether or not that's a good thing to cause, of course, is a different question.

It's a good thing for the species that can fit the new niches. Not so good for those that can't adapt. Don't see too many triceratops and T-rexes in my neighborhood these days.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Funny thing is tho, when Darwin came out with it, most of the Christian scientists saw it as how God works in the Universe. It was the atheists / agnostics that slammed Darwin time and again because it bucked the status quo.

And meanwhile, in the real world...

In the real world, atheists continue to bury their heads. Sorry to burst your secular-scientists-are-gods bubble. Only the hardened fundies have a problem with evolution, which, was not the case for Darwin's contemporaries.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Funny thing is tho, when Darwin came out with it, most of the Christian scientists saw it as how God works in the Universe. It was the atheists / agnostics that slammed Darwin time and again because it bucked the status quo.

Meanwhile in the real world, Christianity is to science, what cancer is to toddlers. Even if it doesn't snuff them out completely it's extremely bad for their development. That's why (for example) the most vocal opponents of evolution are Christians.

That analogy makes zero sense. Nice try though. Never mind that large portions of the bedrock of science was laid down by Christians (among other faiths). But hey, you don't have to believe me. Go look up Darwin. Go look up who criticized him. And then look up their background and beliefs. It's a pretty rudimentary research if you really want to know. Course, that would risk blowing the bubble of revisionism you and others have created. So I won't hold my breath.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[lawrocket 3]

Have you ever considered the idea of not putting things to fit your worldview and instead, perhaps, using facts and evidence to shape it?

Most people put me on the side of denier. Some exceptions. I'm sure as hell not Christian. I'm atheist. But I see plenty of religion from atheists - taking matters on faith and believing what you are told by certain messengers. Kinda like the Catholic Church - only the clergy were allowed access to the Bible to see what it had to say and the Pope's interpretation alone won out.

Recall that the Protestants were the ones who did not trust the Catholics and the King James Bible was published - making a version of the Bible available to all to see for themselves. Yes, the Catholic church hated it because they lost complete control of the message.

About that underlying data?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,094]

>Only the hardened fundies have a problem with evolution

Gallup poll 2010:
52% of Republicans believe in creationism

Harris poll 2009:
Protestants who accept evolution: 32%
Born again Christians who accept evolution: 16%

Gallup poll 2007:
24% of regular churchgoers accept evolution
71% of people who rarely or never go to church accept evolution

So unless you define "hardened fundies" as "people who go to church or Republicans" I don't think your statement is true.

[devildog 0]

Quote

>Only the hardened fundies have a problem with evolution

Gallup poll 2010:
52% of Republicans believe in creationism

Harris poll 2009:
Protestants who accept evolution: 32%
Born again Christians who accept evolution: 16%

Gallup poll 2007:
24% of regular churchgoers accept evolution
71% of people who rarely or never go to church accept evolution

So unless you define "hardened fundies" as "people who go to church or Republicans" I don't think your statement is true.

Maybe I should say militant about only evolution. As a side note, BAs are a pretty small slice of the pie. Anywho, most of those polls phrase the question that they are talking about abiogenesis, and not evolution. Usually something, "Do you think evolution best describes the origin of life?" (which of course, GTE has nothing to do with it).

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[billvon 3,094]

>Maybe I should say militant about only evolution.

I agree there. Most people just don't care and/or haven't thought about it much.

>Anywho, most of those polls phrase the question that they are talking about
>abiogenesis, and not evolution. Usually something, "Do you think evolution best
>describes the origin of life?

Here is the phrasing for the Harris poll:

"Please indicate for each one if you believe in it, or not . . . Darwin's Theory of Evolution"

Nothing about abiogenesis.

[jakee 1,582]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Funny thing is tho, when Darwin came out with it, most of the Christian scientists saw it as how God works in the Universe. It was the atheists / agnostics that slammed Darwin time and again because it bucked the status quo.

And meanwhile, in the real world...

In the real world, atheists continue to bury their heads. Sorry to burst your secular-scientists-are-gods bubble. Only the hardened fundies have a problem with evolution, which, was not the case for Darwin's contemporaries.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. therfore, I will assume you're still describing your fantasy version of history.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[devildog 0]

I'll have to claim ignorance then on the Harris poll. But anywho, to my original point, when Darwin first came out, most of the religious didn't care. The Church of England put out the statement in favor of the theory, claiming to the effect that Darwin made a grand discovery on how God shaped the Universe, and many at the time didn't like the idea of miracles being needed to form life (because God should be able to create a Universe that didn't need intervention). History really doesn't see a mass objection (pun not intended) to evolution until the early 1900s when portions of Christianity felt threatened by it and started to push back.

Personally, I think it's silly (to put religion at odds with GTE "just because"). Christianity does not rise or fall based on whether or not one's genes are capable of changing over time. But some apparently feel otherwise. I can't really think of any religion, large or small, that really goes to pieces over GTE either.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[brenthutch 444]

What does this have to do with the fact that Climate "scientists" refuse to disclose the raw data, or the programing code of their climate models, and will not debate any dissenting points of view? M. Mann did not even have the ability to take live questions from the audience, at Penn State's Speakers Forum, (which I was one), in a clear departure from the normal protocol where audience participation is welcome after the speakers presentation.
If the High Priest of man-made climate change is cowed by little ol me; it may be wise for one to reflect on one's position.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

that would risk blowing the bubble of revisionism you and others have created.

Not really, in the beginning there was the Roman civilization, then Christianity happened and everything fell apart. After that the dark ages followed, a period marked by scientific and economic stagnation. At the end of the dark ages the power of Christianity was broken by things like the reformation and civilization rose again.
If you look at the big picture no revisionism whatsoever is needed to draw the conclusion that Christianity is bad for science. Christianity has been a parasitic cultural phenomenon: it gobbled up money while holding back Western civilization.

[brenthutch 444]

"At the end of the dark ages the power of Christianity was broken by things like the reformation and civilization rose again."


Yep that Martin Luther was a real atheist.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Yep that Martin Luther was a real atheist.

It doesn't really matter that he was a Christian. He caused a schism in the religion, which drastically reduced the power-base of the Roman Catholic Church. Plus: protestants were usually less inclined to set people who showed signs of independent thinking on fire on the town square.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Yep that Martin Luther was a real atheist.

It doesn't really matter that he was a Christian. He caused a schism in the religion, which drastically reduced the power-base of the Roman Catholic Church. Plus: protestants were usually less inclined to set people who showed signs of independent thinking on fire on the town square.

au contraire. John Calvin and Martin Luther were quite vigilant persecutors of witchcraft and were no better than the Catholics who they overthrew. If the protestants had a better overall record on witchcraft it is only because they were generally not as good at co-opting the power of the state to enforce their orthodoxy, but not for lack of trying.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"